Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:I haven't sourced Media Matters in a year and a half... (Seriously, look it up)

Um, where?

You don't know how to find the old Redscape? It's still at:

http://173.226.191.30/forum/

GMTom wrote:

A left wing group act in a partisan way, and the reaction from the right wingers (going by Steve and Tom here)

excuse me?
Those who are truly on the right would be insulted at my inclusion, yes my position on most matters is right leaning, and we all have a few outlier positions, I would not assume I am as far right as you assert:

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and says "quack", forgive me if I think it's not a pigeon.

Just that between you, Steve and Brad (with occasional assistance from Randy and Mach) there's a very 'tag team' look to the forums nowadays.

Thank you for noting in the triumvirate. I consider myself much more conservative than Tom, but I think he will come around

He can of course fund whomever he likes,
Rupert Murdoch runs FOX, and FOX is not the most unbiased source are they? Yet when you continually use Media Matters as a supposed unbiased source, you gots yourself a bit of a dilemma now don't you?

I don't think FOX is as biased as some would have us believe (not their actual news anyways) but I don't think you will find anyone using FOX as an "unbiased" source, so hows come it's ok to use MM as supposedly "unbiased"
It was biased then, it continues to be unbiased now. Comparing this to FOX, it's nowhere near the same thing!

tom

Yet when you continually use Media Matters as a supposed unbiased source, you gots yourself a bit of a dilemma now don't you?

First, I have categorically denied they are unbiased. Can't you read?
When I did source them (about 14 months ago or more..) it was because of the great academic care they take in writing their critiques.
Consider that you have two attorneys making an argument in court. They are both biased. One, say the prosecutor, uses half truths, ill qualified expert testimony, hearsay, and misstatements of evidence to make their case. The other carefully constructs his arguments to counter all of the prosecutions arguments.
Should the jury decide that the defendants arguments aren't valid because he is "biased"? Or should they consider the arguments as constructed?
What you jokers are doing is saying that the arguments from MM don't hold water simply because of their origin. Even MM doesn't say everything Fox reports is erroneous. They choose which issue and reports to critique.

As for Soros supporting all of those organizations. Good for him I suppose. You may think they are un-American. All of the Americans participating in them would probably disagree.
That Soros, who has benefited so well from the current economic and political system still wants to change things to deliver something that he feels is better suggests a huge degree of compassion.(?) That the Koch brothers, who've also won
in the current political and economic system want to maintain the current system suggests baser motives.
Whatever. If you believe in the freedoms in your Constitution you should applaud Soros for helping his fellow citizens exercise their right to assembly, free speech and participation in democracy.

rickyp wrote:When I did source them (about 14 months ago or more..) it was because of the great academic care they take in writing their critiques.

Uh-huh. Here's a guy who dissects some of their "academic care." To put it bluntly, MM doesn't come off as anything but petty, mostly inaccurate, and extremely biased.

As for Soros supporting all of those organizations. Good for him I suppose. You may think they are un-American. All of the Americans participating in them would probably disagree.

Yet, they make the TEA Party look positively mainstream. Let's put it this way--if a candidate for President said, "These are my friends" and listed those organizations, he/she could expect to get about 20-30% of the vote. That is the biggest list of nutty organizations I've ever seen associated with one person.

If you believe in the freedoms in your Constitution you should applaud Soros for helping his fellow citizens exercise their right to assembly, free speech and participation in democracy.

I'm not going to applaud the money man for the socialist/communist movement in this country.

steve
Uh-huh. Here's a guy

Who stopped publishing in 2006.

rickyp wrote:steve
Uh-huh. Here's a guy

Who stopped publishing in 2006.

Which means absolutely nothing in terms of refuting what he said.

Possibilities:

1. Real life intruded (change in job, new child, marriage, emergency in the family, illness)
2. Soros had him taken out.
3. He realized he was over his head--too many errors and too little time.

Want more sources? There are several. Media Matters often took people out of context and attacked them. They have been partisan or even hyper-partisan from the beginning.

GMTom wrote:I am pro abortion

That's an unusual self description!

I'd say Huffpo is a different type than dailykos. The diversity of content makes it rather useful. For instance they have a lot of religious content I see people of various faiths linking to on FB quite regularly.

Public TV and Public Radio is another. I had just noticed that NWPR for my region just exceeded it's fund raising goals this last Thursday. There's a certain cadre of Republican politicians that have declared war on these entities, but I think they'll find they've cut their nose off despite their face. Why make a war out of something that many people love, that only receives 10% of its funds from tax dollars. With constantly increasing viewers and listeners, it's about as close to a win in bang for the tax buck as we are ever going to see.